Toy and Juvenile Product IP Checklist: Clearance, Design Filings, Licence Terms, Safety and Advertising Review, and Enforcement

By Casey Scott McKay · 2026-02-08

This checklist runs a toy or juvenile product line against the calendar, because in this industry the deadlines are set by trade fairs and street dates rather than by statutes. Phase one negotiates the licence approval mechanics that later consume the schedule, and phase two files the design patents and copyright registrations at sculpt approval while fixing the supplier assignments that otherwise surface years later. Phase three treats the trade fair as the foreign filing deadline it is. Phases four and five build the safety certification and tracking label documentation that determines recall scope, and clear advertising, packaging, and connected features before production. Phase six pre-positions the counterfeit enforcement that must be standing before the season opens.

IP and Technology > Trademarks | Checklist | Published 8 February 2026 - Updated 24 July 2026 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us

Summary. This checklist runs a toy or juvenile product line against the calendar, because in this industry the deadlines are set by trade fairs and street dates rather than by statutes. Phase one negotiates the licence approval mechanics that later consume the schedule, and phase two files the design patents and copyright registrations at sculpt approval while fixing the supplier assignments that otherwise surface years later. Phase three treats the trade fair as the foreign filing deadline it is. Phases four and five build the safety certification and tracking label documentation that determines recall scope, and clear advertising, packaging, and connected features before production. Phase six pre-positions the counterfeit enforcement that must be standing before the season opens.

Keywords: toy IP checklist · product calendar · licence approval mechanics · deemed approval · sell off period · sculpt approval filings · broken line claiming · copyright registration · supplier assignment · trade fair disclosure · retailer compliance · safety certification · tracking labels · age grading · children's advertising review · connected toy privacy · customs recordation · marketplace enrolment · seasonal enforcement · annual portfolio review

How to use this checklist

| Field | Detail | |---|---| | Who runs it | Brand counsel with product development, sourcing, marketing, and quality | | When | At each stage gate of the product calendar, from concept to post-season | | Time required | Distributed across an eighteen-month cycle; two days per gate | | Gates | Licence executed; filings made before disclosure; certification issued; enforcement standing | | Output | A filed portfolio, a compliant product, and enforcement infrastructure ready in August | | Companion documents | Protecting a Toy or Juvenile Product Line and Selling to Children |

The matter. A mid-sized toy company is building a twelve-item line around a licensed animated property with a film release next autumn. Three items are sculpted figures, four are playsets, two are plush, one is a construction set, one is a board game, and one is a connected plush with a microphone. The outside design studio that developed the figures has no written assignment. The trade fair is in eleven weeks. The licensor's approval process has already consumed six weeks on concept alone. The retailer wants packaging files in four months. Nobody has looked at the age grading. The general counsel has been asked whether the line is "protected".

Phase 1. Concept and licence: negotiate the mechanics

[ ] Negotiate deemed approval with a defined response period. Ten or fifteen business days, after which non-response is approval. Why. Without it, licensor silence is a veto with no remedy, and the schedule dies quietly. Trap. Accepting a "reasonable efforts to respond promptly" formulation.
[ ] Name the approver and a deputy. Why. "The licensor's brand team" is not a person and cannot be held to a deadline. Trap. A named approver who leaves mid-cycle with no successor clause.
[ ] Cap the rounds per stage. Concept, sculpt, deco, packaging, advertising — two rounds each, then escalation. Why. Unlimited rounds are unlimited delay. Trap. Counting a "minor comment" as outside the round limit.
[ ] Define what constitutes a material change requiring re-approval. Why. The argument about whether a colourway shift needs a fresh round is the argument that costs a season. Trap. Leaving it to good faith between two teams under pressure.
[ ] Secure pre-approved treatments consistent with the style guide. Why. Where the licensor has approved a style guide, conforming uses should not need individual sign-off. Trap. A style guide that is advisory rather than an approval baseline.
[ ] Build an escalation route with a deadline. Why. A deadlock needs somebody senior on both sides resolving it within a week. Trap. An escalation clause with no time limit, which is the same as none.
[ ] Measure the sell-off period against the production cycle. Why. A ninety-day sell-off on a six-month lead time means writing off work in progress on termination. Trap. Negotiating the sell-off in days rather than in production cycles.
[ ] Resolve manufacturing and sublicence consent. Pre-approved factory list, or consent not unreasonably withheld with a deadline. Why. Per-factory consent is a supply chain constraint sourcing did not price. Trap. Discovering it when the factory changes mid-run.
[ ] Check territory and duration against tooling amortisation. Why. Tooling is paid off across a run, and a licence shorter than the amortisation period is a loss in the shape of a deal. Trap. Modelling the royalty and not the tooling.
[ ] Draft for licensor insolvency. Escrowed style guides and assets, a defined post-rejection approval default, and a survival clause. Why. Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology held rejection is a breach rather than a rescission so the licence rights survive — and it does not compel a rejecting licensor to keep approving or supplying. Trap. Reading Mission Product as a complete answer. Use the insolvency drafting discipline.
[ ] Understand why the licensor is demanding, and say so. Why. Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart's Food Stores and the naked licensing line mean a licensor who does not control quality risks abandonment under 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Trap. Framing approvals as bureaucracy, which gets worse terms than framing them as mark defence.
[ ] [Gate] For owned brands, choose the classes now. Toys, games, apparel, entertainment services, publishing. Why. A toy brand that becomes an entertainment property and never filed for entertainment services will negotiate for its own name. Trap. A defensive sweep across classes with no plan, vulnerable under the 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b) bona fide intention requirement.

Phase 2. Sculpt approval: file everything

[ ] File design patents at sculpt approval, not at launch. Why. 35 U.S.C. § 171 protection issues far faster than utility patents, expedited examination is available, and a filing at sculpt can issue before the season. Trap. Waiting for the product to prove itself, by which time disclosure has occurred.
[ ] Claim with broken lines. Why. Claiming the distinctive elements and disclaiming the rest broadens the scope; a design patent in all solid lines is avoided by any change anywhere. Trap. Instructing the draftsperson to show the product as it is.
[ ] File multiple scopes on the products that matter. One narrow to the exact design, one broader to the distinctive silhouette. Why. Copyists change details, not silhouettes. Trap. One filing per product as a budget rule.
[ ] Get the drawings right. Consistent views, all surfaces, unambiguous shading. Why. Design patent scope is the drawings, and drawing defects are the recurring prosecution problem. Trap. Reusing marketing renders. Use the design patent discipline.
[ ] Know the remedy you are securing. Why. 35 U.S.C. § 289 permits the infringer's total profits from the article of manufacture without apportionment, and Samsung Electronics v. Apple held the article may be a component — which matters little for a toy where the design is the product. Trap. Underrating design patents because they feel narrow. The remedy is the point.
[ ] Confirm the infringement standard favours you. Why. Gorham Manufacturing v. White set the ordinary observer test and Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa confirmed it as the sole test against the prior art. Trap. Assuming a copyist's cosmetic changes defeat it. They usually do not.
[ ] Register copyright in the sculpts and all artwork. Why. Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands makes a sculpted figure frequently a protectable sculptural work rather than a useful article, and packaging artwork and instruction illustrations are separately protectable in any event under 17 U.S.C. § 101. Trap. Registering the hero product and skipping the packaging and instruction sheets, which is where the gaps always are.
[ ] Register before the copying, not after. Why. 17 U.S.C. § 411 makes registration a precondition to suit and timely registration preserves 17 U.S.C. § 504 statutory damages and fees. Trap. Looking for the certificate after finding the copy.
[ ] Get express assignments from every studio, sculptor, illustrator, and supplier. Why. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid means contractors are not employees, and the specially commissioned route needs both a signed agreement and a fitting statutory category — which a sculpt does not obviously occupy. Trap. A purchase order and an invoice. They transfer nothing.
[ ] [Gate] Do not proceed to tooling on a design the company does not own. Why. The assignment is free before payment and expensive eight years later when the design has become valuable and the studio has changed hands.

Phase 3. The trade fair is a filing deadline

[ ] File design applications in every jurisdiction that matters before the doors open. Why. Most design regimes outside the United States have no meaningful grace period and first public disclosure ends the right. Trap. Relying on the limited United States grace period, which forfeits everything else.
[ ] File trademark applications for every name, in every market the line will enter. Why. First-to-file jurisdictions mean a visible line will be squatted, and trade fairs broadcast next year's names a year before distribution. Trap. Filing after the catalogue prints. Run the anti-squatting programme ahead of the fair.
[ ] Reach a clearance conclusion on every name before the fair. Why. Clearing afterwards means clearing after the announcement. Trap. Clearing the lead product and assuming the sub-brands are fine.
[ ] Manage the disclosure itself. Photography policy, closed-room previews for sensitive products, buyer non-disclosure agreements where the format allows. Why. Imperfect, and they slow copyists. Trap. Treating a trade fair as a controlled environment.
[ ] Record what was shown and when. Why. A dated first-disclosure record establishes priority in later disputes and costs nothing. Trap. Reconstructing it from photographs two years later.

Phase 4. Retailer requirements and safety documentation

[ ] Flow retailer compliance obligations down to the supplier. Testing protocols, documentation packages, packaging specifications, labelling, social compliance audits, lead times. Why. Retailer manuals bind harder than most public regulation and are enforced by chargebacks and delisting without a court. Trap. Accepting the retailer's obligations and not passing them on with audit rights and an indemnity.
[ ] Check the licence permits disclosure of manufacturing information. Why. Retailer documentation packages and regulator filings include it, and some licences restrict it. Trap. A two-line confidentiality provision that stops a shipment.
[ ] Resolve ownership of retailer-specified exclusive variants. Why. It is frequently unaddressed and it matters when the exclusive ends. Trap. Assuming the brand owns what the retailer specified.
[ ] Obtain third-party testing and the Children's Product Certificate. Why. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act requires accredited laboratory testing and a certificate identifying the product, applicable rules, manufacturer or importer, place and date of manufacture, and testing details. Trap. A supplier-issued certificate from a non-accredited laboratory.
[ ] Test against ASTM F963 and the substance limits. Why. It is a mandatory standard, not guidance, and lead, phthalate, and related limits carry their own testing. Trap. Treating the standard as a quality benchmark rather than a legal requirement.
[ ] Design the tracking label for recall containment. Permanent distinguishing mark on the product and the packaging enabling manufacturer, date and place of production, and cohort to be ascertained. Why. Recall scope is determined by what can be identified: good tracking recalls one run from one factory in one month; poor tracking recalls everything. Trap. Treating it as an operations detail. It is the difference between an incident and a brand event.
[ ] Set the age grading deliberately and document the reasoning. Why. It determines which rules apply and turns on stated intent, features and marketing, and consumer perception — a product marketed to twelve-year-olds that appeals to six-year-olds is assessed on what children actually do with it. Trap. A marketing decision with regulatory consequences, made by people who do not know that.
[ ] Run the specific hazard categories. Small parts, magnets, button cell batteries. Why. These have driven repeated recalls and the battery rules have tightened materially. Trap. Assuming last cycle's compliance carries.
[ ] [Gate] Confirm the insurance responds to a recall. Why. Product recall coverage and product liability coverage are different products, and a policy that pays injury claims may not fund a recall. Trap. Asking the broker after the incident.

Phase 5. Advertising, packaging, and connected features

[ ] Review advertising at storyboard, not at broadcast. Why. A commercial reshot in September because the depiction overstated the product is a season lost. Trap. Legal review as a final sign-off step.
[ ] Check the depiction matches the product as sold. Performance within actual capability, configurations included in the box, accurate scale, and the assembly-required statement. Why. These are the recurring findings at the Children's Advertising Review Unit, whose decisions are published and referable to the regulator. Trap. Treating a self-regulatory body as optional.
[ ] Remove direct urging to buy or to ask a parent. Why. Restricted, along with claims creating unrealistic expectations about performance or social benefit. Trap. A call to action written for an adult audience.
[ ] Make advertising identifiable as advertising. Why. Hardest for influencer content, unboxing videos, and in-game promotion, and heightened disclosure expectations apply for a child audience. Trap. Adult-standard material connection disclosure on child-directed content.
[ ] Substantiate every performance, comparative, safety, and sustainability claim on the box. Why. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) supports competitor false advertising claims, and a competitor moves faster than a regulator and seeks an injunction in season. Trap. Unqualified recycled content or biodegradability claims.
[ ] Sequence packaging approvals across three gatekeepers. Licensor, retailer, regulatory reviewer, each on its own timetable, all before print. Why. Packaging is advertising and it is the last thing to lock. Trap. Serial approvals that were meant to be parallel.
[ ] Gate the connected product on the privacy analysis before tooling. Why. COPPA applies to a connected toy as an online service directed to children, and consent architecture cannot be retrofitted in a season. Trap. Treating the connected plush as a toy with a feature rather than as a children's data product.
[ ] Map every third-party component that receives data. Speech recognition, analytics, advertising identifiers, cloud services. Why. The toy company remains responsible for what its vendors do. Trap. A voice feature whose recognition vendor retains recordings.
[ ] Add the state layer. Comprehensive privacy statutes, age-appropriate design provisions, and biometric statutes where voiceprints or facial images are processed. Why. Federal compliance is a floor. Trap. Running only the federal analysis. Use the children's privacy programme.
[ ] [Gate] Expect the retailer to ask. Why. Data practices are now part of vendor onboarding, which makes the privacy answer a condition of shelf space.

Phase 6. Enforcement, standing before the season

[ ] Record the marks with customs in August. Why. Recordation enables seizures without a court order under the 15 U.S.C. § 1124 importation prohibition, is inexpensive, and takes time to process. Trap. Starting in November, when it is useless.
[ ] Enrol in every major marketplace brand programme. Registrations, images, authorised seller list loaded. Why. Enrolment takes weeks; takedowns take hours once enrolled. Trap. Enrolling during the wave.
[ ] Build a test buy and evidence protocol. Named purchasers, chain of custody, comparison methodology, retained samples. Why. Casually gathered evidence fails at the point it matters. Trap. Screenshots and a credit card statement.
[ ] Prepare the filing for the two or three products worth it. Why. The 15 U.S.C. § 1116 ex parte seizure remedy and 15 U.S.C. § 1117 counterfeiting damages justify the filing, and the Schedule A structure makes it efficient against a diffuse seller population. Trap. Drafting in December.
[ ] Consider Section 337. Why. Exclusion orders on a schedule federal litigation cannot match, and a general exclusion order reaches parties never named. Trap. Dismissing it as too heavy without pricing it against a season of takedowns.
[ ] Know the extraterritorial limit. Why. Abitron Austria v. Hetronic International requires domestic use in commerce for the Lanham Act infringement provisions, which pushes weight onto border and platform remedies. Trap. Building a strategy around reaching foreign conduct directly.
[ ] Separate counterfeits, knock-offs, and grey goods. Why. Counterfeits bear the mark and get the strongest remedies under the anticounterfeiting programme; knock-offs copy the design and are reached by the Phase 2 filings; grey goods are genuine and turn on material differences, which in toys frequently exist because packaging, language, safety marking, and age grading differ by market. Trap. One playbook for three problems.
[ ] Publish an authorised seller policy. Why. Without one, the position against unauthorised resellers is weaker on every platform. Trap. A policy that exists internally and appears nowhere public.
[ ] [Gate] Triage in season by volume, not by outrage. Why. Most listings are low volume and resolve on takedown; a small number are operations worth an application. Trap. Spending the enforcement budget on the most annoying seller rather than the largest.

Phase 7. Working the sample matter

[ ] Answer the "is the line protected" question by stage, not yes or no. Why. Three of the twelve items are protectable sculptural works, four are playsets whose protection is mostly packaging trade dress and design patents, the board game's mechanics are unprotectable, and the connected plush is a data product. Trap. A single answer to a question that has twelve.
[ ] Stop the design studio payment until the assignment is signed. Why. Three sculpted figures with no written assignment means the studio owns the line's most valuable assets, and leverage exists only while money is owed. Trap. Paying first and negotiating the assignment afterwards, which is a different conversation entirely.
[ ] File design patents on the three figures and the construction set this week. Why. Eleven weeks to the fair, and foreign design rights end on disclosure. Trap. Waiting for licensor sculpt approval to complete. File on the approved-in-substance version and file again if it changes materially.
[ ] Treat the board game as a trade dress and copyright problem. Why. Game mechanics are not protectable; the artwork, the rulebook text, the board design, and the packaging are. Trap. Promising the business a monopoly on the play pattern.
[ ] Escalate the licensor's six-week concept approval now, in writing. Why. At that rate the remaining four stages consume the schedule, and the escalation clause exists for exactly this. Trap. Absorbing the delay and raising it at renewal, when the season has already been lost.
[ ] Set the age grading before the packaging files go to the retailer. Why. It determines which safety rules apply, and it is four months from a deadline nobody can move. Trap. Letting marketing set it to widen the addressable market and discovering the testing implications afterwards.
[ ] Gate the connected plush separately from the rest of the line. Why. It is a children's data product with a microphone, and its privacy and security analysis cannot be retrofitted. Trap. Letting one item's compliance timeline hold the other eleven, or letting the other eleven's schedule push it through ungated.
[ ] Check whether the film release date is contractually committed. Why. An autumn film release sets a street date that no approval process can move, and every deadline in this checklist works backwards from it. Trap. Planning to the toy season when the property is planning to the film.
[ ] [Gate] Give the general counsel a two-column answer. What is protected today, and what needs to happen in the next eleven weeks for the rest. Why. That is the answer the question was reaching for. Trap. A portfolio schedule, which answers a different question.

Phase 8. The trade dress file, built from launch

[ ] Start the file at launch, because it cannot be assembled during a dispute. Why. Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Brothers holds product design trade dress is never inherently distinctive and always requires secondary meaning, which takes years of evidence. Trap. Commissioning a survey during litigation and having nothing to survey against.
[ ] Collect six categories per line, annually. Advertising spend by year and medium; unsolicited media coverage; sales volumes and market share; look-for advertising directing consumers to the design as an indicator of source; survey evidence where the product warrants it; and instances of actual confusion including misdirected complaints. Why. These are what a secondary meaning showing is made of. Trap. Keeping only the sales figures, which is the weakest of the six.
[ ] Protect the packaging first. Why. Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana permits inherently distinctive packaging trade dress, so the box may be protectable in year one when the toy is not. Trap. Redesigning packaging annually, which prevents any trade dress from ever accruing.
[ ] Watch the functionality trap. Why. TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays bars trade dress in functional features and treats a utility patent disclosing the feature as strong evidence of functionality. The play mechanic is usually functional; the aesthetic expression around it may not be. Trap. Filing a utility patent on a mechanism and then claiming trade dress in the same feature five years later.
[ ] Sequence the regimes deliberately. Why. Filing everything on everything creates evidence against yourself. Decide which regime carries which element using the layered protection sequence. Trap. A portfolio strategy that is really a filing habit.
[ ] Register the trade dress when the evidence supports it. Typically years three to five for a successful line. Why. A registration carries the enforcement thereafter and shifts the burden. Trap. Applying in year one, receiving a refusal for lack of distinctiveness, and creating a file history that hurts later.
[ ] [Gate] Assign the file to a named person. Why. A trade dress file that is nobody's job is not being built. Trap. Assuming marketing keeps the advertising records. They keep the creative, not the spend by medium.

Phase 9. Adapting for juvenile products

[ ] Treat the registration card capture rate as a legal metric. Why. Durable infant and toddler products carry a registration card requirement enabling direct recall notification, and the mechanism exists because recall reach matters more when the product holds a baby. Trap. Reporting cards printed rather than cards returned.
[ ] Draft the supply agreement to a liability standard, not a chargeback standard. Why. A toy recall is expensive; a juvenile product failure is catastrophic, and the indemnity chain, insurance analysis, and traceability documentation all carry more weight. Trap. Reusing the toy template.
[ ] Accept that standardisation removes design protection. Why. Features dictated by the safety standard are functional under TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays and fall outside trade dress. Protect what the standard does not dictate. Trap. Claiming trade dress in a harness geometry the standard requires.
[ ] Move utility patents to the centre of the portfolio. Why. Harness mechanisms, folding systems, and attachment interfaces are genuine inventions in a way a play pattern is not. Trap. Running the toy filing programme, which underweights utility.
[ ] Substantiate comparative safety claims to a litigation standard. Why. Competitors in this category do bring false advertising claims over performance, and parents buy on those claims. Trap. Marketing copy derived from a test report nobody in legal has read.
[ ] Do not over-assert against compatible accessories. Why. A third party making an accessory that fits a branded stroller is not infringing by making a compatible product, and the trademark question is whether the reference is nominative fair use. Trap. Sending letters that generate a declaratory judgment action and a finding that strengthens the accessory maker.
[ ] Plan for the resale market rather than fighting it. Why. Products are used briefly and resold at scale, some recalled, some past their stated service life, and the trademark position on genuine used goods is limited. Trap. Enforcement where the answer is service life marking, registration data, and recall communication.

Phase 10. Extension, evergreen lines, and the annual review

[ ] File in the classes the brand will need before it needs them. Why. A toy brand that becomes an entertainment property and never filed for entertainment services will negotiate for its own name. Trap. Filing only where the product sells today.
[ ] Run the licensor-side discipline when licensing out. Approval capacity, quality control obligations under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, and the licensing programme structure. Why. A licensor that cannot approve at the rate it licenses creates the delay it complained about as a licensee. Trap. A broad licence with operational control that becomes an accidental franchise with registration and disclosure obligations.
[ ] Build character delineation evidence where the line embodies a character. Why. The character and franchise rights claim is stronger and longer-lived than product design. Trap. Assuming the figure protects the character.
[ ] Re-examine parody and novelty products after Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products. Why. Where an accused infringer uses a mark as a designation of source for its own goods, the threshold expressive-use test does not apply and ordinary confusion analysis governs — strengthening rights holders and increasing exposure for anyone producing parody merchandise. Trap. Relying on a pre-2023 clearance opinion. The expressive use analysis moved.
[ ] For an evergreen line, audit four things. Expired design patents, meaning the shape rides on trade dress or nothing. Undocumented chain of title on mid-century sculpts with live termination windows. A category-defining name on the genericide path. And accumulated deadwood registrations vulnerable to cancellation and to the expungement procedures. Trap. Auditing after somebody else petitions.
[ ] Check whether a retro reissue is actually lawful. Why. Original packaging artwork may have unclear ownership, original advertising may not meet current standards, and the original product may not meet current safety rules. Trap. A faithful reissue that is faithful to a non-compliant product.
[ ] Run the eight annual questions. Which design patents to maintain. Which registrations cover discontinued goods. Whether every product got copyright registration. Whether any supplier delivered without an assignment. What enforcement cost and recovered. Which licence approvals ran late and against which provision. Whether the tracking labels could scope a recall today. And what is actually in the trade dress file. Why. Each is a one-question audit with a cheap fix. Trap. An annual review that reports filings made rather than gaps found.
[ ] [Gate] Report to the business in the language of the calendar. Why. Filings and registrations mean nothing to a product team; deadlines and seasons do. Trap. A portfolio report that answers a question nobody asked.

Phase 11. When it goes wrong

[ ] A competitor's product appears at the fair looking like yours: establish first disclosure. Dated records of your showing, catalogue dates, filing dates. Why. This is why the disclosure record matters. Trap. Reconstructing dates from photographs.
[ ] Then check what you actually filed. Why. A design patent with broken lines claiming the distinctive silhouette is the strongest position; one claiming everything in solid lines may be avoided; no filing pushes the analysis to trade dress, which in a line's early years is difficult under Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Brothers. Trap. Sending a letter before knowing which of the three positions you are in.
[ ] Consider the copyright claim. Why. If the sculpt is a protectable sculptural work under Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, access plus substantial similarity is a different and often easier showing than design patent infringement. Trap. Forgetting the registration you made and litigating the harder claim.
[ ] Move before the competitor cuts tooling. Why. A competitor that has not committed tooling can redesign; one that has will fight. Trap. A measured response that arrives after the steel.
[ ] On a recall, scope from the tracking data first. Why. That is the entire purpose of the Phase 4 label decision. Trap. Announcing a scope before the data supports it, which cannot be narrowed afterwards.
[ ] Preserve the supply chain claims immediately. Notify the manufacturer, preserve certificates and test reports, and check whether the indemnity reaches a factory that may be practically unreachable. Why. These claims degrade fast. Trap. Managing the consumer communication and losing the recovery.
[ ] Tender to insurance at once and expect an argument. Why. Whether the loss is a recall expense or a liability claim determines which policy responds. Trap. A single tender to the wrong carrier.
[ ] Notify the licensor. Why. A recall on licensed goods is a brand event for them and the licence probably requires it. Trap. Discovering the notification obligation during the recall.
[ ] On termination, start the sell-off clock deliberately. Why. Read the provision against inventory and work in progress before the countdown begins. Trap. Learning the sell-off period from the licensor's letter.
[ ] Where the licensor is insolvent, work the practical problems rather than the legal one. Why. Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology preserves the licence rights; approvals, asset access, and quality control participation are what rejection does not compel. Trap. Assuming survival of the licence means survival of the operation. Plan the brand transition early, because a licensed line that must be renamed takes a season to unwind.
[ ] [Gate] On a counterfeit wave, run the prepared playbook rather than building one. Why. Test buys against the protocol, takedowns through the enrolled programme, customs alerts against the recordation, and the filing for sellers that warrant it. Trap. Improvising in November and recording nothing, which means next year's budget argument has no evidence.

Phase 12. The design review agenda

[ ] Put five questions on every design review, in the product team's process rather than in a legal memorandum. Why. The decisions that determine legal outcomes here are made by designers, sourcing managers, and marketers months before counsel is consulted. Trap. Distributing this checklist and calling it training.
[ ] Has it been filed? Design patent on the sculpt, copyright on the artwork, trademarks on every name in every market.
[ ] Has it been disclosed? Trade fair, retailer preview, social media, supplier presentation — any of which ends foreign design rights if the filing has not happened.
[ ] Has it been approved? Licensor concept, sculpt, deco, packaging, advertising — and whether the current version is materially different from what was approved.
[ ] What does the box claim? Every performance, comparative, safety, and sustainability claim, plus the age grading and what it triggers.
[ ] Does it collect anything? If yes, the privacy gate applies before tooling.
[ ] Write down what the programme deliberately is not doing. Utility patents outside the mechanisms that are genuinely inventions; international filings beyond the markets that matter; defensive class sweeps; survey evidence before there is a hit to protect. Why. A documented accepted limit is a governance decision; an undocumented one reads later as an oversight. Trap. Leaving the omissions implicit.
[ ] Name a successor for every standing obligation. The trade dress file, the customs recordation renewal, the marketplace enrolments, the annual audit, and the triennial-style diary entries for licence renewals. Why. Each outlives the person who set it up. Trap. A handover listing systems rather than promises.

Outcome. A licence whose approval mechanics have deadlines and a named approver. Design patents filed at sculpt with broken lines, copyright registered across sculpts, artwork, and instructions, and express assignments from every contributor. Foreign design and trademark filings complete before the fair, with a dated disclosure record. Third-party certification, a tracking label designed for recall containment, and a documented age grading. Advertising cleared at storyboard, packaging through three gatekeepers before print, and the connected product gated on a privacy analysis. Customs recordation, marketplace enrolment, an evidence protocol, and a prepared filing, all standing in August.

The five things people get wrong

Filing design patents at launch. By then the trade fair has disclosed the line and most foreign design rights are gone. The filing belongs at sculpt approval, with broken lines, at multiple scopes on the products that matter.

Taking a purchase order as an assignment. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid means the studio owns the sculpt absent a signed assignment, and the problem surfaces when the design has become valuable.

Negotiating the royalty and not the approval mechanics. The rate is a known range; deemed approval, named approvers, round caps, and a materiality threshold are what determine whether the line ships.

Treating the tracking label as an operations detail. It determines whether a recall covers one production run or the entire line, and it is decided months before the incident.

Building enforcement in October. Customs recordation, marketplace enrolment, and evidence protocols take weeks to stand up and hours to use. The wave does not wait for them.

Key Authorities at a Glance

| Authority | Proposition | |---|---| | 15 U.S.C. § 1051 | Application; intent to use | | 15 U.S.C. § 1052 | Grounds for refusal | | 15 U.S.C. § 1114 | Infringement of registered marks | | 15 U.S.C. § 1116 | Injunctions; ex parte seizure | | 15 U.S.C. § 1117 | Damages; counterfeiting awards | | 15 U.S.C. § 1124 | Importation of infringing goods | | 15 U.S.C. § 1125 | False designation; trade dress; dilution | | 15 U.S.C. § 1127 | Definitions; abandonment | | 35 U.S.C. § 171 | Design patents | | 35 U.S.C. § 289 | Total profits remedy | | 17 U.S.C. § 101 | Useful article; separability | | 17 U.S.C. § 411 | Registration precondition to suit | | 17 U.S.C. § 504 | Statutory damages | | Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands | Separability test | | Samsung Electronics v. Apple | Article of manufacture | | Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa | Ordinary observer test | | Gorham Manufacturing v. White | Design patent infringement | | Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Brothers | Product design; secondary meaning | | TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays | Functionality | | Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana | Inherently distinctive packaging | | Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products | Source-identifying use; parody | | Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology | Rejection is breach | | Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart's Food Stores | Licensor control | | Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid | Contractor ownership | | Abitron Austria v. Hetronic International | Domestic use requirement | | Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act | Certification; tracking labels | | ASTM F963 toy safety standard | Mandatory toy standard | | Children's Advertising Review Unit | Advertising review | | COPPA and connected toys | Children's privacy |